George Allen: Two-Faced Hack
By As an addendum to my previous post, here’s George Allen–the empty suit many people think the GOP will prop up in 2008–doing the abortion kabuki:
MR. RUSSERT: Something else happened this week, Senator Allen, in South Dakota. And this is how The New York Times reported it: “Governor Michael Rounds, the Republican Governor of South Dakota, signed into law the nation’s most sweeping state abortion ban. … The law makes it a felony to perform any abortion except in a case of a pregnant woman’s life being in jeopardy.” No exceptions for rape, incest, health of the mother. Would you like to see that law, the law of the United States of America?
SEN. ALLEN: Well, first of all I respect and support the right of the people in the states to pass laws that reflect their values and their desires. For the country, I think each state ought to make those decisions. Personally, I think that there should be exceptions for rape and incest because I look at the person. There is a victim of a crime, and if they so choose they ought to have that option.
MR. RUSSERT: But you would outlaw all abortion except in cases of rape, incest?
SEN. ALLEN: Oh, I don’t think the federal government ought to be making such laws. I think the laws ought to be determined by the people in the states. If South Dakota wants a law like that, they can have that. If South Carolina wants a different law, that’s up to South Carolina or Virginia or California.
MR. RUSSERT: And if a state said unlimited abortion on demand, you would abide by that?
SEN. ALLEN: Well, I don’t agree with that approach.
MR. RUSSERT: But you said states should determine…
SEN. ALLEN: But the, but the—if a state did that—I can’t imagine too many states or any state having one that allows abortion for all nine months for any reason or no reason at all. But that would be the right of the people of the states. And for those—but if a state like South Dakota wants a law like that, even though it’s not exactly what I would think is appropriate, that does reflect the will of the people. This is a representative democracy and I think that’s appropriate approach.
MR. RUSSERT: It would means that Roe vs. Wade would have to be overturned, which you would support?
SEN. ALLEN: I think Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted in such a way that it precludes the rights of the people to decide their laws. When I was governor, we passed the law on parental notification. I think parents ought to be involved if a girl who’s 16, 17 years old…
MR. RUSSERT: So you say overturn Roe. You hope Roe is overturned.
SEN. ALLEN: Well, Roe—if you need parental notification for ear piercing or a tattoo, they certainly ought to be involved with it. And so I think Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted in such a way as to restrict the will of people. Moreover, that decision was from the early 1970s and medical science has advanced a great deal. We know a lot more and of course, unborn children have an earlier stage of development.
MR. RUSSERT: So overturn?
SEN. ALLEN: The point is, rather than arguing on a legal term, the point of the matter is the people in the states ought to be making these decisions. And if that’s contrary to the dictates of Roe vs. Wade, so be it. Because the way that Roe vs. Wade has been interpreted is taking away the rights of the people in the states to make these decisions.
This is just a classic example of how Republicans discuss abortion. In the most generous construction, most of this is a non-sequitur; parental notification is irrelevant to “how Roe v. Wade has been interpreted,” since for more than a decade Roe has been interpreted to permit such regulations. What overturning Roe means is allowing states to criminalize abortions (including, Allen believes, in cases of rape or incest, even if he does not personally favor these regulations.) He tries to dance around this fact by going with another classic GOP trope: hiding behind a fog of spruious, question-begging rhetoric about federalism. But at least Allen is consistent about his belief that “the people in the states ought to be making these decisions,” and that it would be “the right of the people of the states” to have fully legal abortion, right?
Er:
On Passage of the Partial-Birth Abortion [sic] Ban Act of 2003:Allen (R-VA), Yea
It’s just amazing that Republicans have managed to get their discourse about abortion–which is mendacious and disingenuous from A to Z–characterized as a manifestation of High Moral Principle. Enough. I don’t expect the Russerts of the world to challenge this bullshit, but Democrats need to start doing it.
On a related point, a good op-ed from Eyal Press today, noting both the already severe georpraphic and class disaprities in abortion access, and the fact that overturning Roe would greately exacerbate them. (He also doesn’t fall into the “countermobilization myth” trap his NYT article did.)